I've said this before...
Fascism is sensitivity to disgust that is so extreme that it resorts to authoritarianism to purge the object of that disgust, then continues projecting disgust onto things that aren't disgusting, and purges them, too.
And communism is sensitivity to envy that is so extreme that it resorts to authoritarianism to steal or destroy the object of that envy, the continues projecting envy onto things that aren't enviable, and destroys them, too.
The key concept here is destroy.
You see, just as there is a healthy version of disgust, whose function is to keep you away from unhealthy things, there is a healthy version of envy.
Envy is discomfort at others having what you do not.
The healthy version of envy is the kind that makes you want the good things that other people have, and do what they did to get them.
But communism is not just envy, it's perverted envy, and it manifests not as a desire for what others have, but as a desire for others not to have it.
If you live in a slum that's covered in gang tags, it is right and healthy to envy the nice clean upper class neighborhood.
And a healthy level of envy would motivate questions like how can I get more money so I can move there?
or how can I make my street more like that?
But if that envy, that discomfort at others having what you do not, is coupled with a lack of agency, and a sense of entitlement, then attaining the object of that envy by imitating the subject of that envy feels hopeless.
So the extremely envious seek to alleviate the pain of envy not by attaining the object of their envy but by destroying it.
This is why communists say billionaires shouldn't exist
instead of everyone should have nice things
.
This is why they say destroy white privilege
instead of everyone should have opportunities
.
And this is why the commie rioters of 2020 destroyed businesses instead of police stations.
American neocommunists [ed.: Biolenininsts], on some level, realize that they are depressed losers. And their realization of this, coupled with the depression itself, makes them give of hope of ever getting their shit together and having nice things. So the only means they can imagine of alleviating their pain is to make sure no one else has nice things, either.
One of the reasons that I label so many people "communist" who would not describe themselves as such is because once you realize that communism is based on toxic envy, it's pretty easy to spot who is motivated by that toxic envy.
People caught in that spiral are communists, they just don't know it yet. They are in the incubation period. Unless there is a therapeutic intervention of some sort, they will lapse in to full-blown, symptomatic communism, because communism is the logical conclusion of premises they have already accepted.
If you are burning down department stores, tagging rich neighborhoods so they will look like yours, or screaming for "the rich" to be taxed more, then you are bound for the bottom of the slope, not because it is necessarily slippery, but because all slopes are slippery when you hurl yourself down them at great speed.
Overpopulation is not a global problem and the Malthusians are fractally wrong.
This is because they don't actually understand humanity's basic paradigm for survival and prosperity.
They think of humanity as bacteria in a petrie dish. If the bacteria divide every second, and it takes 1 hour to fill the dish 100%, then at 59 minutes and 57 seconds, the dish will only be 12.5% full.
That's what I was told in primary school, and it's an excellent description of geometric growth, but it utterly ignores the obvious fact that humans are not bacteria.
Humans don't survive by dividing and consuming all available resources over and over again, in the exact same way, until they die.
Instead, humans survive by conquering and mastering nature and the environment. They do this by inventing new ways to obtain resources, and new ways to use them.
This process has always occurred faster than running out of resources, and there's a systemic reason for that.
It's because there is a positive correlation between population and innovation. It has to do with the number of innovators.
Humanity is divided into:
What humanity does to master nature is to breed, produce a tiny amount of Innovators, and a large number of Imitators, and have the latter copy the former.
The beauty of this system is that while only one man may be brilliant enough to invent the steam engine, every man basically smart enough to learn from him is now functionally that man, because they can use the steam engine just as he does.
But humanity needs Innovators to copy. And Innovators are born, not made. And only a tiny fraction of humans are Innovators.
So by now, anyone reading this who isn't an Idiot will realize what modern humanity's baked-in solution to resource scarcity is.
Modern man overcomes resource scarcity by breeding. When you make more babies, you produce Innovators who create technological advances, and Imitators who implement them, at a faster rate than you run out of stuff.
But Devon, Earth itself has limited resources!
So what? We haven't even scratched the surface yet, and who said we were limited to Earth?
But Devon, space is hard and expensive!
Sounds like a job for Innovators and Imitators, then. Better get breeding and make some.
You want to gamble humanity's future on unpredictable technological progress?
We have done that every day since we learned to bang the rocks together. It's how we survive. It has literally never failed. Humans evolved to chase antelope on the savanna. We ran out of "enough antelope" and "enough savanna" thousands of years ago, yet we are still here.
Breed and innovate, or die
So, after a bit of discussion of the CAFE standards, and the chicken tax, and whatnot, we come around to the real issue... Trying to fix problems with policy.
Specifically, a lot of folks in the comments arguing about whether it's a good idea or not.
Statists, like Stancil, want to use the power of government to solve everything they see as a problem, while individualists see state power as the source of problems, not the solution.
Clearly, in the case of the [problems allegedly created by owners of] big trucks Stancil is complaining about, we're dealing with a second-order consequence of intersecting statist policies. But the real question here, is "why does Stancil not see that?"
Well, the question carries its own answer. The Stancils of this world are defined by their inability to see that. They are, in the words of William Gibson, "he who knoweth not the name". If statists could understand how policies create unintended high-order consequences, they would not be statists. Therefore the statists, as a group, are composed of people who don't get that.
The core delusion here is that statists believe that problems exist because of a lack of the political will to solve them. They seriously think that, for every political problem, there is a simple policy action that will make it go away forever, a big red FIXIT button we could push. And they think that these buttons have gone unpushed because people don't care, or actively don't want the problem solved.
Blah blah blah.
Every software engineer ever has dealt with this sort of person in a different, non-political, context. People who think that the computer has a little person in it, fully sentient, who just needs to have your wants explained to him. Easy, right? Just pass a law. Just ban guns, or cannabis. Just teach the bible in schools. Just open the borders and let everyone in. It'll be fine.
The rest of us, however, understand that problems exist because the world is complicated. We don't know why to fix a problem, until the moment we figure it out, and then we cease to think of it as a problem.
That's why no one dies of scurvy anymore. It's not because we banned scurvy, or created the Department of Scurvy prevention. It's because we figured out what ascorbic acid is. And suddenly, scurvy vanished from our universe of problems.
Politicians don't fix problems. Engineers, and to a lesser extent scientists, do. What politicians do is create thousands upon thousands of pages of untested software code for society, with all sorts of bugs in it.
Ask Will Stancil how to improve pedestrian safety, and scream on Twitter about how much he hates white people their trucks.
Ask a politician, and he'll create a bill banning trucks, stick on a rider that sends 50 billion dollars each to Israel and Ukraine, then another one specifying that large-sized condoms are banned in the continental United States.
Ask an engineer, and he'll stick cheap solid-state cameras on the outside of the truck, maybe write some software, make blind spots obsolete, and then USDOT will bury his design forever because some law written in 1947 says you have to use mirrors.
The real problem with human societies, that technology has yet to solve, is that some people simply aren't born with the necessary IQ score to understand emergent properties, high order consequences, feedback loops, statistics, concepts like "average" and "per capita", and so on. They have no idea how to deal with or even think about, complex systems, and they vote.
Spot on as per usual.
And by the way, when you see through this particular veil, the world becomes a hell of a lot clearer.
Any time I see a big social problem now - inflation, economic scarcity in specific industries, prices that seem to have inverted the relationship between supply and demand, even crime etc. - the first thing I do is ask what policy is creating the incentives underlying the problem. Because there is very nearly always a dumb policy supported by people like Stancil that created it.
Devon mentions CAFE standards and the Chicken Tax, both of which play an incredibly, obviously direct role in why we now live in a world split between compact cars and giant trucks/SUVs. Everything else has been legally disincentivized or outright banned.
That is the literal answer to many questions people often care about.
Why is it so hard to build affordable housing?
Because for decades, state after state mandated more and more building requirements and show no sign of stopping.
Why are so many cities filled with strip malls and big box stores?
Because regulations require enormous parking lots, long setbacks from the road, and zone commercial activity out of areas that would otherwise be mixed between residential and shops.
Why is health care in the US so expensive when prices for most other consumer goods and services have gone down while quality has improved?
Because a century of regulations and subsidies has completely divorced the end-consumer from the price of care, there are significant restrictions on the number of doctors entering med school each year, CON laws ensure a limited number of hospitals and clinics restricting supply increases... While simultaneously, the state has aggressively incentivized more people to use those resources. Turns out subsidizing demand and restricting supply inside a market that is heavily restricted and controlled by the government isn't a great way to lower prices.
I could go on all day with examples, but again and again, people like Stancil observe serious social problems and foolishly imagine that the reason they exist is because there just haven't been enough laws passed to "do something" yet.
The opposite is overwhelmingly true, though.
The problem likely only exists as a completely unintended (but hardly unpredictable) consequence of pre-existing laws which were ostensibly designed to solve something else entirely.
But Stancils can't see it because they don't want to.
This post is a mirror from a short writeup by science fiction author Devon Eriksen.
Classical liberal societies are hackable because they tend to set higher and higher values on human life and safety over time.
Eventually, society reaches a state where the worst non-violent thing is held to be less bad than the mildest sort of violence necessary to stop that that thing.
It then becomes effectively illegal to stop anyone from doing that thing. In this social state of affairs, a grifter can victimize people in any way he chooses so long as he:
Shoplifters can stop employing stealth altogether and simply loot stores, knowing that they cannot be caught or punish, because store owners will be punished more severely for dishing out a beating, or simply restraining them for the police, than the punishment for theft.
Youtube "pranksters" can harass and threaten innocent people, knowing that standing six inches from someone and screaming in their face, or yelling to bystanders that some innocent person is a child rapist, will be punished less severely, if at all, than the beatdown / pepper spraying that this behavior invites.
Self-styled protestors can block the arteries of civilization, knowing that driving a car over them, which is the only response available to drivers, will be punished as murder, while they themselves would be unlucky to be charged with an infraction.
These are all people who have learned to hack classical liberalism, and I'm sure you can think of more examples.
So what is to be done?
First, the inhabitants of classical liberal society must realize that property is freedom.
If we cannot protect that which we build and invest in, that means we are not free, because our choices, our self-determination, and even little pieces of our lives, are being taken away from us by those who can deprive us of our property at will.
This means that we must mentally free ourselves from the attitude that violence is unacceptable. Instead, when confronted with a property crime, or an assault on our dignity or liberty, we must normalize the use of the minimum amount of force that will reliably and safely stop it.
Note that I say "normalize", not "legalize".
Legalizing is an act of the government, and in states where the government is willing to do this, this sort of thing isn't a widespread problem. No one is blocking roads in Tennessee, Idaho, or Montana, because they know the consequences would be swift and unpleasant.
In California, Chicago, Oregon, western Washington, and so on, the state will not put a stop to these things, because it wants them to happen.
So those of you who are forced to live in those states, and are unable to leave, must normalize beatdowns.
Yes, your state and local governments will want to punish you for playing rough with their beloved criminal underclass, and their precious insane hobos and bums.
But you must realize what the criminals and bums realized long ago... the police and the state are not ubiquitous, and their power to catch and punish you is much more limited than you think.
Yes, they will go after you much harder than they go after thugs, bums, and commies, because thugs, bums, and commies are their constituents and you are not.
But that's what "normalize" means. It means make normal. You all have to start doing it, or at least a lot of you. Because one or two people can be made an example of, but normal behavior cannot.
How long would this continue if every group of roadblocking communist agitators were beaten by a mob of angry motorists who carry a pair of thick socks and a set of Chinese mediation balls, or a bar of soap, in their cars?
You have to take your states back. Your governments will not do it for you. This whole thing was their idea. You have to realize they are the enemy, stop petitioning them to protect you, and start protecting yourselves.
The following is an archive of a thread by James Lindsay on Twitter, with edits mine.
Necessary context: as this thread unfolds, millions of illegal aliens have invaded the United States over the past three years. This is criminal activity, yet the U.S. government not only turns a blind eye to it, but in fact deliberately funds a lot of this activity¹ through nonprofit fronts (for some reason, the European Union funds those nonprofits a lot as well), and has threatened to punish U.S. state law enforcement trying to stem the oceans of people coming through the border.
We can therefore rule out this crisis being accidental, as the nation's news media quickly moves from the phase "it's not happening" to the "and we're so happy it is, bigot" phase.
¹ An archive of this video can be seen here.
The main things [the Biden regime] is importing with the border disaster are a crisis and, crucially, class struggle, which America mostly lacks.
Marxism is a manipulative ideology built on class struggle. If you don't have a permanent underclass, though, you lack a key ingredient to spark the chaos needed for Marxist takeover. You'll have to import one, then activate it. Then the explosive violence can begin. That's the border.
The factors that can make this sequence of events take place are:
The crisis part is simple: a crisis — the most beloved tactic of Marxists everywhere — forces a reflexive environment and an urgent shitty solution, which might get them their Democrat voters. There is precedent for this, as Reagan legalized the residence and subsequent nationalization of enormous amounts of illegal aliens, which directly led to California permanently becoming Democrat. We already have AOC on record saying that, in order to "solve" the illegals problem, what must be done is "legalize them".
What's really coming, though, is a massive citizens vs. aliens class struggle. Here's how we know this:
The framing of that struggle is Critical Immigration Theory. This is a form of Critical Theory of Identity that is already popular. If you've heard people discuss and defend the migration crisis by using abstract platitudes like "human rights," "global citizenship," and "no person is illegal," or if you've seen manipulative arguments used to suppress any opinion that opposes illegal mass migration, you witnessed Critical Immigration Theory in action.
Naturally, this framing is all nonsense (people don't just have a "right" to barge into your land, there's no such thing as "global" citizenship, and it is obvious that many people can and do commit illegal actions such as trespassing), but the fact that it's nonsense is irrelevant — all that matters is that the nonsense is meant to push the materialist conflict forward.
Why is this framing even necessary, though? The framing is necessary because, ordinarily, your average cultural Marxist or NPC brainwashed by CRT would never accept mass immigration on his own. Normally, the bourgeois Leftist would see illegal immigrants as leprous interlopers and threats to their economic interests, physical security and social stability.
Critical Immigration Theory will fix that. This Theory is a necessary ingredient because it mixes socioeconomic oil (bourgeois Leftists, especially intellectuals) and water (illegal aliens). It's like soap or any other surfactant — one end of the molecule mixes with water and the other with oil, enabling an emulsion. Explicitly stated: the Leftist intellectuals need a social theory to make the public accept foreign aliens as a basis for a class struggle that normally stands against them, and to make them believe (falsely) that the aliens and the Leftists are both on the same side of the struggle.
Critical Race Theory works this way too. At heart, it's a materialist (grifter) theory begging for affirmative action, handouts, welfare, and reparations, posing as a social theory that manipulates rich Leftist white guilt. That gets racist white Leftist elites to advocate for it, despite the fact that CRT explicitly wants their destruction.
—"We're on your side!" — "But we're not on yours"
What the regime is doing, is importing the practical basis for a brand new Marxist class struggle that blends Marxism, Marxist Third-Worldism and Postcolonialism, Marxist Environmentalism, and Marxist Critical Race Theory themes, so the Left intelligentsia will advocate for it.
If you want to know how that looks like, current-year Europe is a preview.
The flying car had been invented by the 1930's. A flying craft that could be piloted by teenagers, stored in a double wide garage, and take off from a residential street.
They should sell for $1-5K each new today. The State strangled their makers out of existence. (The excellent book Dude, where's my flying car? chronicles this.)
Every time I bring this up I'll hear someone say "They're dangerous! It's good we don't let kids from the hood fly these for $5K in their teens. Imagine what injuries and crashes would cost"
Here's the thing, though... basically every plane crash is nearly fatal. They're like motorcycles: either you respect them, or you very quickly pay the ultimate price. Because of that, the actual external costs of single-occupant plane crashes (much like motorcycle crashes) are very low — a one-time instantly fatal crash that 75% of the time hits nothing (the vast majority of the Earth, even near major cities, is unoccupied parking lot or field). Contrast this with bad automobile drivers, eternally causing crashes and involving others in their rolling liability.
So the real cost of letting people choose their own risk and make their own decision... is them choosing their own risk and making their own decision you may not like!
This faulty reasoning replicates across so much of modern life.
Smoking has already been banned in the vast majority of public settings and indeed the U.K. is gearing up to ban it entirely, even as most places have legalized equally carcinogenic cannabis. Nicotine itself doesn't cause cancer (the patches, vapes and gums don't); the cancer comes from breathing burnt smoke itself, which is the same with marijuana smoke.
This prohibition is justified on health grounds, and if you object "But my body my choice" the longhouse matriarchy we live in will screech that you cost the public healthcare system money, so it's not your choice, it's the healthcare system's...
...Except this is complete bullshit. Someone who dies of 99% fatal lung cancer at 70 saves the healthcare system and public coffers in general potentially millions. Right as they'd stopped working and contributing, they die. Instead, if they didn't smoke they might have lived to 98, have taken 28 more years of social security and retirement benefits, required treatment for maybe a half dozen lesser cancers, and new hips and knees along the way. By selflessly choosing to smoke and look cool and be more skinny/productive, this smoker has not only increased their productivity and positive externalities to the community, they've also saved the welfare state millions of dollars in lifetime benefit costs.
Why is "my body, my choice" not acceptable for smoking in private, but totally real for these much sicker people that cost the healthcare system way more than smokers?
So why are they actually banning smoking if the stated reasons are bullshit?
Because the modern longhouse State gets all of its legitimacy from the decrepit cry for "safety".
Same reason there is now a push to bloat motorcycle insurance costs — in many jurisdictions you cannot simply buy liability insurance on a motorcycle, but all insurance companies are mandated to tack on Injury insurance, loss of wages insurance, lifetime disability insurance... such that the total cost of these extras vastly exceeds the actual liability insurance you are required to have for the road.
Again, motorcycles are disproportionately driven by 50-70 year old men; people whose untimely death or loss of lifespan would actually save the system money. Some screeching bureaucrat might claim you're imposing costs on the system with your motorcycle injury... but statistically no, you're generating net savings... numbers the bureaucrat certainly hasn't crunched.
The real reason we can't smoke, fly privately, and increasingly are discouraged from biking —the real reason progress is stalled — is because in the absence of any meaningful external enemy, the only way the State can justify itself and its expansion is via nannyism and protecting the people "from themselves". The stated reason for the State existing is to protect you, and if there isn't a scary other threatening to invade and kill you, its legitimacy is dependent on artificially creating a society terrified of their own agency.
It is a perfect self-licking ice-cream cone. The State must exist and expand to protect your life and liberty... from your own life and liberty.
For this absurdity, flying cars have been uninvented; for this, the romantic waft of smoke in a dimly lit room is fast becoming extinct; for this, the wind in the hair, the joy of life is being extinguished. For this invention itself has been destroyed.
So, remember: every time you are seen to take risk, to strike out, to spread your wings, or to light your match — you are implicitly denouncing the State.
An inheritance tax is a special kind of evil.
You're not just robbing the dead.
You're robbing children.
Worse yet, you are robbing those who are about to die of the entire sense of their life's purpose.
It is the most basic of human instincts, to want to pass on what we have created, to want to make more lives, to love them even more than we love ourselves, and to want to leave them a better future than the life we had. In a voluntary world, it would be the most normal of affairs to beget those creations to one's family, friends, and most beloved endeavors.
Yes, there are those who do not feel this urge, whether that's because of psychological scars from a troubled past, or simply having another direction in life. I have nothing to say against those people. They find other ways to contribute to a better future, and we will find others way to care for them when they are old.
But someone has to make more humans, and someone has to love them enough to want to make the world better for them than it was for us. Otherwise, what is the point of the human race, of the Universe, of literally anything?
A legacy is not just money. It's not even just the family business, or the family farm, or family heirlooms. It's even more than a sense of connection to our past. It is the visible, tangible evidence, whether it is a little or a lot, that we existed, that we were loved by those who gave us life, that we were not a misfortune or an accident, that we belong with the world and there is a place for us in it.
It would be unthinkably cruel to rob even the wealthiest and most privileged of the younger generation of this. But what's crueler still is to selectively rob the middle class, the kids who are only inheriting a little, and have neither sophisticated knowledge of the tax code, nor lawyers and accountants on speed dial.
Every scheme for government-sponsored robbery is sold with claims of being a new version of Robin Hood, stealing from the rich to give to the poor.
But Robin of Locksley didn't steal from the rich to give to the poor. He stole from tax collectors and gave back to their victims. And he didn't work for the government. Furthermore, every one of these schemes, even the most sophisticated, requires some level of destruction of wealth every time someone parts ways with their loved ones.
Yes, it's true, there are some among us who will receive no legacy other than their parents' love. Some people don't even get that. It's an everyday tragedy, and one of the struggles of civilization is to find ways to give opportunities to those who were born with the talent to use them and nothing else.
But plundering and destroying our civilization's accumulated storehouse of wealth, of knowledge, and of love for future generations — no.
It is a great evil.
This evil is brought about by equalists who are obsessed with (quite explicitly, they don't hide it) sculpting the blank slates that they fervently believe in, but reality never brought about.
It is an atrocity.
And it has to stop.
Are you a Silicon Valley super-magnate with a billion-dollar fortune, or appreciable fraction thereof?
Were you born into the investor class, with red-carpet access to Ivy League universities, and plenty of family and social circle seed money to build your business once you graduated?
Did learn entrepreneurship and business management at your parents' knees from the moment you understood the concept?
Do you feel a vague sense of existential guilt because you realize that the world is full of talented people who didn't get the chances you got?
DO. NOT. ADVOCATE. COMMUNISM. See a therapist instead.
You could also endow some charities and scholarship funds and stuff, but most importantly, see a therapist.
Your vague existential guilt is not a call to change society. It is just your personal problem, one of the ver y few personal problems you have. It's a problem that exists in your head, so you must solve it in your head, not by ruining your entire civilization just so you can feel like you are "doing something".
The problem of lack of opportunities for talented members of the underclass has always existed (ask me how I know), and you are not going to solve it just by thinking about laws for five minutes.
It ain't that fucking easy.
Solving society's "forever problems" is not as simple as building a profitable website in an office in Palo Alto, CA.
Typically the only thing that permanently removes a problem from the human experience is a new piece of technology. Not a new political philosophy. And especially not an old, failed one.
Communism does not level the playing field. It sets the playing field on fire, and removes the ball.
And the middle class are not chess pieces for you to move around so you can solve your emotional problems.
You should not be ashamed of having hundreds of millions of dollars. Instead, you should be ashamed of being a mother fucking communist in 2023.
In 1845, there was plenty of excuse for being a communist. They didn't know any better. They had no idea how terribly everything would go wrong, how high the mountains of corpses would be stacked.
In 2023, you have to be a lunatic or a psychopath. What kind of person looks at 100+ years of mass slaughter, torture, rape, starvation, and brutal totalitarian regimes, and says "yeah, but maybe we could try just a little bit of that, and see how it goes?"
We've seen how it goes. It goes straight to hell, without the luxury of a handbasket. The experiments are over, and the results are in.
The middle class, and the Trumpenproletariat, knows that. They know perfectly well that communist ideas will be sold under a banner of "soak the rich", but weaponized against them, instead.
Do you think I am being rude to you? Do you feel like that's off limits?
It's not, and that's the whole point. For you, this is a genteel discussion of hypotheticals; if you lost 95% of your net worth, you'd still eat steak and fly business every day. For Middle America, or Latin America, or even most of Europe's people, it's an existential threat.
That's why some of y'all are getting sent pictures of your front doors. Because people who live in a double-wide just outside of Topeka, Kansas have a far better grasp of the ground truth of the early 21st century than you do, and they are trying to tell you that the days of genteel discussion of hypotheticals are over, at least for a while.
Because while you putter around with abstract ideas to make society "more fair", they are struggling to survive, wondering if their nation can be saved, and trying to think of ways to do so without resorting to a civil war that would rapidly turn into a Rwandan style machete party.
I don't want that. You don't want that. Even they don't want that. But if you keep doing this bullshit of advocating for Communism, we are all going to run out of alternatives.
So will you please, for the sake of your nation, your civilization, and your families and children, please stop maxxing charisma and intelligence, and start putting some experience points into wisdom?
Thanks.
It is the entire culture surrounding "captains of the Tech Industry", from birth, that makes them into Champagne Communists.
Autism adjacent techie nerds who managed to make millions or billions off a website, without ever seeing Middle America or what's happening there, are confused by the regular reality of regular folks.
They start to move in elite circles, get lots of attention online, and they start to think about how society should be ordered to maximize some sort of vague goodity-ness.
And then their brain just treats this problem like coding a website for streaming video games. You make up a really smart plan, and write the code, and all the little components execute the code, and some new feature is added, increasing the amount of goodity-ness in the world. Yay!
But societies aren't made of components waiting for instructions. They are made of people, who have their own goals and needs. And laws aren't computer code. They don't make people do things. Instead, they send men with guns to kidnap people and lock them in a concrete box for years or decades.
And autistic-adjacent nerd boys who were born into the investor class, and never had to contend with the physical horrors of being a target of the State, don't fully realize that. Their ability to identify with others is already stunted, and they simply cannot empathize with people they can't see.
So they say really wild stuff about how they want to change the JavaScript of society to add this or that feature. They really do believe that they can organize society as if it was a game of SimCity 2000 (don't forget to fund those roads to 100%!)
It's no different than the conversations they had in Harvard or Yale or MIT, usually while high: "Bro, like, what if we just took children at birth, and randomly assigned them to different families? Wouldn't that end racism?" They're not literally contemplating tearing an infant from his mother's arms. They haven't thought that far ahead. They're just slinging the shit with their bros.
But when they leave college for the Silicon Valley tech bubble, it doesn't feel all that fundamentally different, but it is. The difference is that, if and when you hit it out of the park, business-wise, people, especially other powerful people, start to regard you as not only a grown-ass man, but a leader and a thinker whose opinion matters.
So when one of them, still high on the same weed he was smoking in college, says "let's take away all the inheritances, put them in a big pool, and distribute them evenly", and other autistic tech nerds listen and discuss the idea, then certain people on the other end of the country, inside the Beltway, start to rub their hands together gleefully, and drool a little bit. These fellows are not autism-adjacent — they are psychopath-adjacent. They just want to get their hands on all that money, and if midwest farm families get dragged off their land by National Guardsmen, hell, that's a bonus, because that right there is their pornography. (Who had all those children at Waco killed? Yep. That's correct.) Paying some of the peasants minimum wage to beat, shoot, and kidnap the rest is what they get off on.
So they love it when naive public figures start to experiment with totalitarian communist ideas. It normalizes these ideas. And if that happens, they are waiting to pounce.
Your standard Silicon Valley Commie billionaire, in person, is probably a perfectly nice kid, if a little wet around the ears. But when they start playing with dynamite in public, it is necessary for all of us to quickly intervene.
Humiliating wealthy Communists is not strictly the goal — just a necessary side effect. After all, they suffer a lot less than an orphaned 19 year old being dragged out of mom and dad's house because it now belongs to the State.
So-called "captains of the Tech Industry" need to learn to read the room, and not suggest utopian authoritarianism in the very decade that Middle America is disenfranchised, despised, and bleeding from the pocketbook because the political class has been robbing them since before they were born. Ideally, they'd learn a bit about the history of totalitarianism before they hash out their totalitarian plans in public too.
But that's not the goal, either. The goal is to make insane totalitarian nonsense embarrassing and disqualifying to suggest.
"Anti-vaxxer" is a slur.
The term "anti-vaxxer" is used to undermine individual autonomy by critiquing personal health choices as socially irresponsible.
The term "anti-vaxxer" is used to marginalize parental concerns, casting doubt on the sincerity of guardians prioritizing their children's health.
The term "anti-vaxxer" is used to suppress the stories and experiences of individuals who have had genuine adverse reactions to vaccines.
The term "anti-vaxxer" is used to oversimplify complex scientific debates into black-and-white dichotomies.
The term "anti-vaxxer" is used to obscure the historical and socio-economic contexts that inform diverse attitudes toward vaccination.
The term "anti-vaxxer" is used to conflate skepticism about pharmaceutical industry practices with opposition to vaccinations themselves.
The term "anti-vaxxer" is used to sidestep systemic issues, such as access to healthcare and information, placing the burden of public health solely on individuals.
The term "anti-vaxxer" is used to disregard the role of informed consent in medical interventions.
The term "anti-vaxxer" is used to create a false sense of consensus by ignoring the medical community's internal debates and disagreements.
The term "anti-vaxxer" is used to weaponize science against dissenters, even when their positions may have scientific backing.
The term "anti-vaxxer" is used to propagate fear, implying a direct threat without acknowledging the diversity of reasons people may delay or decline certain vaccines.
The term "anti-vaxxer" is used to pressure individuals with blanket policies, without regard for individual health nuances and contraindications.
The term "anti-vaxxer" is used to fuel media sensationalism, often prioritizing clicks and views over balanced reporting and discussion.
The term "anti-vaxxer" is used to polarize public opinion, creating a wider social rift and less cohesion on public health strategy.
The term "anti-vaxxer" is used to deflect critique from vaccine policies and their enforcement, placing the spotlight on the public instead of policymakers.
The term "anti-vaxxer" is used to discredit any adverse event reporting related to vaccines as hysteria rather than a genuine safety signal.
The term "anti-vaxxer" is used to prioritize the vilification of certain groups over the pursuit of empathetic public health communication strategies.
The term "anti-vaxxer" is used to cast ethical and philosophical beliefs about medical interventions as illegitimate or unworthy of consideration.
The term "anti-vaxxer" is used to amplify the voice of the Big Phama while silencing the minority, negating the essentials of a democratic discourse in healthcare policy.
This is a transcript of a thread written by Jonathan Shedler on Twitter, with minor changes made.
One of most important things I've learned:
Severe personality problems find camouflage. No one thinks "I'm a sadist" or "I'm a malignant narcissist". Rather, they find a belief system / social group that validates their most hateful, destructive impulses, then construes them as virtues.
The most toxic and hateful people in the world are 100% convinced they fight for what is true and right. They find a way to give free rein to their cruelty, to attack, to treat others cruelly and viciously. And they find allies to cheer them on who also believe they are on the side of all that is true and good.
For psychologists looking for a more theoretical explanation, the psychological processes are:
Splitting means not recognizing one's own capacity for hate, cruelty, and destructiveness. The person is blind to the bad in themselves. Instead, they project the badness onto some designated other.
And this other person, via the defense of projection, is now seen as the repository of all that is bad and evil and necessary to destroy. That's the projection. The person now feels fully justified in unleashing their viciousness and hate on the other person, who is now seen (via projection) as someone monstrous who must be destroyed.
If the person who is projected on responds to the provocation with anger, this is now seen as further confirmation of how hateful and destructive they are (this is what is called is projective identification).
The end result is that the person can deny their own sadism, cruelty, and hate—while simultaneously acting it out without restraint — and feel themselves to be 100% on the side of truth and righteousness as they do it.
Example:
— "Did you read about Hunter's laptop? So much crime is revealed in the e-mails therein"
— "Haha, that's Russian disinformation."
Check out this clip:
I love that experiment! Even monkeys understand trade.
Moreso, monkeys also get the differences in value between goods! As soon as Monkey #1 realizes he is getting an inferior good (cucumber yuk, grape yum) for the same price, he immediately and forcefully rejects the trade, displaying frustration and anger.
Bravo! What a great experiment!
Videos shown to New Prague school staff depict white people as mosquitoes and inherently biased against black people.
“Just imagine, instead of being a stupid comment, a microaggression is a mosquito bite,” one of the videos teaching about microaggressions says. It goes on to explain that some people are bitten by “mosquitoes” a lot more than others.
Find the video below:
Oh — do note how at the very end they chop up the "mosquito" to pieces. What do you think that means?
Look at your Western society. You can see the decline — in particular, with regards to a rise in crime and a reduction in "the system's" ability to solve it.
Is the establishment really unable to solve crime?
No. It is unwilling. Because crime bolsters it.
I want to tell you that the crime is the point. It's not a side effect of leftist governance: it's an essential feature. Sam Francis called it "anarcho-tyranny": a descent into managed lawlessness.
Crime is a tool to impose a particular kind of social order. Here is how it works:
The ruling class is largely safe from crime — in part because they enjoy private security, and in part because they have their own exclusive spaces, where crime is not permitted. Yes, under anarcho-tyranny, living free from crime is a privilege reserved for the ruling class. Additionally, laws favor them, taxes are not a problem for them, and they routinely invent new forms of political correctness (a social control technology).
Meanwhile, the tax-producing middle classes are downstream from that. They are hemmed in and controlled by those means of high taxes, prejudicial laws, political correctness and endemic crime.
When you, as a member of this class, step out onto the street to protest the unprecedented shuttering of small businesses during a pandemic, the riot police arrive in full force and beat seven bells out of you, even though you've always paid your taxes, worked hard and are only out on the streets to exercise your foundational political rights as a citizen. Meanwhile, evil laws that punish good deeds (like defending yourself, or acting charitably towards others) or trivial acts (like "using the wrong pronoun") continue to fatten the penal code.
Low-level criminals, on the other hand, especially from minorities, are free to riot and loot and murder in the name of "racial justice" or whatever other shibboleth is in vogue. Any ordinary member of the public who intervenes to stop such madness, if they aren't beaten to death on the spot, is then subject to the full force of the law in retribution for daring to challenge this new order.
Almost as if society had turned to monomaniacally criminalizing decency while turning a blind eye to crime. No, not almost. Exactly like that.
This arrangement of organized terror teaches the middle class — the productive and nonaggressive elements of society — a very poignant lesson: do not dare protest against injustice. Live in fear, stay home, be quiet, don't make waves. Crime can always get worse, you know? And if something were to happen to you, who's going to deliver justice? Hahaha.
The best feature of the system is that the ruling class can wash its hands from this evil, because they appear unconnected to the direct perpetrators of evil — save, of course, for the easy-to-overlook fact that the ruling class, nominally tasked with solving crime, permits and foments the anarcho-tyranny.
Said arrangement is now the default mode of governance throughout much of the West, and especially in cities like London, or New York, or Paris.
The essential nature of anarcho-tyranny is why Western governments and the Western media, which totally colludes in the maintenance of this system, hate somebody like Nayib Bukele: because Bukele is showing by example that crime, even the worst kind of violent crime, is a problem that can be solved quite simply, by the judicious application of force against the perpetrators of crime.
Your establishment needs crime to keep you in line. It's that simple.
The formula is simple: take an extreme temperature limited to a period of a few days from only one extremely tiny location, then encourage click-bait media to push the narrative that it represents the climate crisis caused by CO2 and threatening the whole Earth.
A buoy in Manatee Bay managed by the Everglades National Park, is located north of Key Largo and indicated by the 2 red arrows. The official buoy data (upper left graph) shows water temperatures bounced between ~90°F and ~101 on consecutive two days then plummeted to 85-86°F over the following days!
Clearly those water temperatures were being driven by dynamics other than rising CO2.
Nonetheless the PBS News Hour pushed a hoax from notorious alarmist journalist Seth Borenstein, with the title South Florida water temperature hits triple digits, may have set world record for warmest seawater. And New York Times pushes 101°F in the Ocean Off Florida: Was It a World Record? Another scientist, despite attempting to sound an alarm, was unintentionally quite perceptive saying, “If you climbed in the water there, I’m pretty darn sure it would have felt like you’re in a hot tub.”
Indeed, the science of solar ponds has shown when freshwater overlays saltier water, heat gets trapped, and temperatures can rise by as much as 60°F degrees higher than the surface at depths between 5 and 10 feet.
Also notice the Manatee Bay buoy measuring water temperatures at a 5-foot depth is located in a small embayment surrounded by landform that prevents mixing with cooler water and forms a natural hot tub, as seen in the enlarged illustration on the left.
To maintain the crisis hoax, it’s also important to ignore conflicting data. Southern Florida has several buoys, some measuring water temperature, some air temperature, and some both. Just 56 miles to the southwest of Manatee Bay, the VAKF1 buoy measured water temperatures that were 10°F lower than Manatee Bay on those same days (lower left graph), and then cooled to 86°F. Manatee Bay’s buoy lacked air temperature data but VAKF1 reported a high air temperature of 91°F (lower right graph), which then cooled to the low 80s, even dipping to 76°F.
Those air temperatures don’t even approach being unprecedented. The hottest temperature ever recorded in the state of Florida was 109 degrees on June 29, 1931, in Monticello located over 400 miles north of Everglades National Park. According to Wikipedia Everglades National Park’s average maximum air temperatures for July is 92.5°F And the record high for July was 102°F. Nevertheless, Washington Post pushed “Extremely warm waters linked to record-setting heat over South Florida ... The extreme ocean heat comes amid Florida's hottest July on record.” trying to keep the climate crisis hoax alive.
This post is an archive from the following Twitter thread.